1. authority
  2. And It's One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting For?

And It's One, Two, Three, What Are We Fighting For?

By tqa on September 12, 2007.

The New York Times/CBS News poll that was released on Monday got a fair bit of media attention. Most of the attention focused on the revelation that Americans, by an overwhelming margin, trust the military leadership to resolve the war in Iraq (68%), rather than Congress (21%) or the White House (5%). The remainder of the attention went to the poll's finding that most Americans don't think the surge has made a heck of a lot of progress.

There's one question buried way in the middle of the poll - 15 pages into the pdf - that I think deserves a lot more attention. Respondents were asked the following question: "What do you think the US is fighting for in Iraq?" The results were grim.

Terrorism 11%

Bring stability/democracy 30%

Help Iraqi people 4%

Oil 18%

Weapons of mass destruction -

Bush 5%

Combination 1%

Other 6%

Nothing 1%

DK/NA 23%

There seems to be some confusion among the American people when it comes to understanding what, exactly, our soldiers are being asked to kill and die for. Actually, confusion is putting it mildly. No one answer was chosen by more than 30% of those polled. "Don't Know/No Answer" was the second most popular choice. Four separate answers polled in the double digits.

We are losing people in Iraq every day, and we don't know why.

Tags
Iraq
Iraq and US Politics
War and Peace

More like this

Giuliani's Low Information Signals
In the 2004 election, the great majority of voters didn't deliberate the specific policy positions of the candidates and then make an informed choice. Instead, in order to make up their minds, the miserly public relied heavily on "low information signals" such as likability and perceived character…
Americans ignorant of Iraqi deaths
The AP reports: Americans are keenly aware of how many U.S. forces have lost their lives in Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. But they woefully underestimate the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed. When the poll was conducted earlier this month, a little more than 3,100 U.S.…
A Few Observations About the NY Times Tea Bugger Poll
I'll have more to say about the rally tomorrow (short version: as was said in more civilized times, meh.). But I think it's worth noting that the Tea Partyers are even more wingnutty than Digby thinks: 1) The NY Times poll graphic compares Tea Buggers with all respondents. But keep in mind that…
The Great White Sort
I suggested below that though on average whites did not move toward the Democrats, regionally there might be differences. I inferred this from the fact that areas where blacks are thin on the ground in the South it looks as if John McCain did better than George W. Bush in 2004. So I compared the…

Hegemony gets my vote.

Hubris comes in second.

By natural cynic (not verified) on 12 Sep 2007 #permalink

There can be multiple reasons for doing something, and I suspect that many of the respondents would have chosen more than one of the above if it was an option.

Those who chose "Bring stability/democracy" would probably also believe that it was "Helping the Iraqi people." And people who believe we are fighting for "Oil" must certainly also feel that it is because of "Bush."

I wonder why "Combination" wasn't more popular. Perhaps people didn't see that it was an option, or it was confusing in the poll.

Er, is "weapons of mass destruction" supposed to be blank?

I wonder how many votes oil would have gotten had it been a choice.

I wonder how many votes oil would have gotten had it been a choice.

Oil 18%

I want to see how many votes "Idiocy" would have got...

By SmellyTerror (not verified) on 16 Sep 2007 #permalink

Err, that "idiocy" wasn't a dig at you, Moll, but at Bush and friends. Sorry, didn't notice my composition...

By SmellyTerror (not verified) on 16 Sep 2007 #permalink